Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Some people like to believe that we, at least in the West, are living in a post-religious age. This seems especially true in Europe where Church affiliation and Church attendance have fallen dramatically. Indeed, Churches seem to be dying in city after city, town after town. They are turning into tourist spots than places of worship. (In the US, Y.M.C.A. hardly have any religious function whatsoever.) But even if organized religions are on the wane, various forms of spirituality are flourishing all across the Western World.
After all, something doesn’t have to be religious in order to be revered, sanctified, adulated, and worshiped. To be sure, non-religious objects of worship may not have lasting value, but then, they can endlessly be replaced by new idols of adoration. Mindless consumers may be crazy about one rock star today and then lose interest tomorrow, but then, there will be another rock star and then another for them to worship. Fans of Oprah revere her and look upon her as a source of inspiration. MLK has become an object of cult worship even though we know he was a man, not a god. Many young people idolize rappers and certain celebrities. Neo-mondo-trasho-pagan-worship is very much a part of modern life.

Among Conservatives, there’s a quasi-worship of the Jewish Race as the special breed. Among Liberals, homosexuals are gazed upon with a crazy blend of compassion, awe, respect, admiration, guilt, and etc. There’s the ‘gay gospel’ of Matthew Shepherd(who, as it turns out, was killed over drug deal gone bad than for his homosexuality). There is admiration of homos as particularly creative, ingenious, and stylish. As advocates of ‘minority rights’, homos win admiration as ‘leftist’ champions of the underdog, but as stylish elites who rub shoulders with the powerful and privileged, homos are also gazed upon as the new royalty. (After all, Princess Diana was friends with Elton John!)
For a glimpse of how homosexuality has become sacralized and idolized, consider the Sam Smith music video of "Lay Me Down". It shows two homos being blessed in ‘gaytrimony’ in a Christian Church to the resounding and rapturous ecstasy of mondo-trasho-pagan-worshipers of infantile consumerism.

So, even without religion, the need to worship and want of rapture will be part of the human psyche. Why else were so many people so sanctimonious in their devotion to Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, and Che-Guevara-ism? Even in atheist communist nations, it came all-too-naturally for most people to worship and revere something as holy.

Of course, non-religious objects of worship tend not to have long life-spans. Who worships Lenin now? Or Stalin? Chinese still revere Mao, but the kind of blind Maomania that shook China in the 1950s and 1960s is gone for good.
During the heyday of Beatlemania, one could almost believe teenybopper fans of the Beatles would be devoted to the Fab Four forever(or four-ever), but they eventually grew up. They may still feel nostalgia for the Beatles and enjoy the music, but the magic has long passed. (Same with the cult of the Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia.)

In the end, God will outlast all temporal objects of worship. If God outlasted all the great pagan gods(that were worshiped over centuries or even across millennia, as in Ancient Egypt), then He will also outlast all the idols of pop culture.
Nevertheless, there is one way in which pop culture has an advantage over God. Pop culture is endlessly rebooted, refreshed, and replenished. It’s been this capacity for refreshment that made capitalism triumph over communism. Paradoxically, capitalist culture was more resilient than communist culture precisely because it was so disposable.
From 1917 to the fall of communism in the early 1990s, the USSR reiterated and memorialized the same sacred symbols and icons over and over. Initially, they seemed fresh, energetic, and inspirational to the Soviet people, but they eventually grew stale and tiresome. Even so, they had a reasonably long shelf-life. Generations of Soviets were raised to worship Marx and Lenin, sing the Internationale and Soviet anthem, to march in parades and join rallies.

In contrast, capitalist culture was always changing and tossing things out. What was hot in the 1920s was forgotten by the 1930s, and what was hip in the 1930s was gone by the 1940s, and the 1950s and 1960s had their own styles and fashions, and etc. So, everything about capitalism seemed disposable, here today, gone tomorrow. It was communist passion vs capitalist fashion. And this was worrying to some capitalists. Soviets seemed united through time and across space with the same set of sacred icons, symbols, and sacred texts, whereas capitalists seemed to lack core objects of worship.
And in a conflict like the Vietnam War and Cuban Revolution, the capitalists were worried that consumer materialists had no chance against spiritual warriors of communism. It’s like what Michael Corleone says in THE GODFATHER PART 2 after observing a Castro-ite kill himself for the Revolution. He says soldiers are paid to fight for the regime, but revolutionaries believe in something higher than themselves. They have a sacred sense of cause and are willing to sacrifice themselves for it. Soon enough, we see the Revolution engulfing Havana itself as Michael scrambles to flee along with all the other Americans.

THE GODFATHER PART 2. Consumer-capitalism as state ideology in Cuba. As in I AM CUBA, helpless against the force of 'spiritualist' Marxist Revolution.

When sacred communist spirit meets profane capitalism depravity, the former could very possibly win. If communists failed in Indonesia, it was because the right-wing generals were Muslims who had their own powerful sense of the sacred. But the consumerist-capitalist dictatorship of South Vietnam had no chance against the dedicated spirit-warriors of communism attacking from the North.

But in the long run, capitalism had one big advantage over communism. Other than the fact that it was economically far more productive in the long run, capitalism had the advantage of rejuvenation due to its short worship-span. While Marx and Lenin did serve as great inspiration for generations of people in communist nations, people generally get tired of the same thing. It’s like we don’t want to see the same movie over and over. We don’t want to eat the same food over and over. Communism offered something powerful to revere and worship, but the same set of images and music just got tiresome after awhile. It seemed emptier and emptier.
In contrast, even though capitalist culture produced a lot of junky, disposable, and here-today-gone-tomorrow sounds and images, there was always something new to admire, revere, get excited over, become rapturous about, and worship. Maybe this kind of ‘worship’ would only last a week or a month or just a few years. But once one’s devotion to it passed, there were new things to get all excited over.
If capitalism produced the Monkees or Sam Smith and expected consumers to revere or worship them forever, it would be mocked and rejected by all. But if capitalism keeps producing new variations of the Monkees, madonna, Sam Smith, Peter Frampton, Taylor Swift, Tupac, Oprah, Dr. Phil, and etc., one never gets bored or tired as there’s always something new to admire, revere, worship, and go crazy over.

Believer yesterday, Belieber today, and Believer again tomorrow.

Objects of communist worship had greater worship-span than anything in capitalist culture, but if communists had to worship the same sacred icons generation after generation, capitalists could worship a hundred or a thousand things throughout their lifetimes. Each of these mini-idols may not amount to much on its own, but the capitalist-consumer is never bored as he or she is constantly replenished in his or her opportunities for worshipful devotion to something, whether it be HARRY POTTER, TWILIGHT, HUNGER GAME, or FIFTY SHADES OF GREY.

Capitalist culture may be disposable but as long as the pop culture industry constantly replenishes the altar with new objects of worship as the old ones are being dispensed with and forgotten, the cult of worship is kept alive and vibrant.

And it is in this that even Old Time Religion is facing stiff competition with capitalist-consumerist cult of techno-pagan worship. The world religions are great, but they are about worship of the same God and the preservation of the sacred tradition across centuries or even millennia. As such, they are not very exciting. One must find inner-calm and graceful state of mind to feel as one with Yahweh or Allah. Old time religions are infinitely more profound than any product of popular culture, but they offer the same set of sacred images, sounds, and texts across the generations, which is problematic to modern youths weaned on sensory-overload via all manner of electronic gadgets from infant-hood.
As shallow, trashy, vapid, and/or slight as items of pop culture worship may be, there’s always something new(even if only recycled to seem ‘new’) to take the place of old stuff that has become ‘lame’ and ‘boring’. As the narcissistic and nihilistic cult of fashion(flowing from Hollywood and American music industry) dominates global culture, young people are addicted to idols and icons of instant-gratification, instant-salvation, instant-redemption, instant-rapture, and instant-karma. Things are now actually far worse than in the 1960s with the Summer of Love, Woodstock, and all that. At the very least, there was a sincere effort among the boomers, however naive and ludicrous, to connect with the holy, the natural, and the transcendental. The Beatles dabbled with Eastern Mysticism, and Woodstock was about reconnecting with Eden. At the very least, the counterculture generation of experimentalists tried, got burned, and failed. But they really did try to ‘find themselves’. Today, so-called ‘millennial generation’ doesn’t even try. They are satisfied with jolts of micro-orgasmic rapture to be found through their endless apps on gadgets that keep them connected with the ‘cloud’ of sacro-social networking.
As with any ‘spiritual’ experience, the new culture not only comes with countless mini-nirvanas but countless mini-witch-hunts for heretics who are said to be guilty of this or that supposed ‘micro-aggression’. Some progs(so-called ‘progressives’) even devote their time to purging videogames of bad influence, as if the world of video-games is a contest between heaven and hell.

Anyway, if spirituality is hardwired in our psyche that seeks something sacred or holy to worship and something wicked or profane to denounce and purge, it’s also true that our minds are hardwired to be root-ist and identitarian. Because we have complex/extensive memories, we can’t help developing a sense of how we came to be what we are. Of course, many people try to suppress much of their memories(in the eyes of others and/or unto themselves) because their humble and/or uncool backgrounds may be regarded as uneventful or embarrassing, but then, this makes them more eager to adopt a ‘collective memory’ that lends them special meaning. This was one of the appeals of nationalism. Suppose you came from a dull small town where nothing ever happened. But upon entering public school and then joining in the military, your could take on the collective memory of being part of a great culture, people, and nation. Thus, a nobody from a small English town could feel as belonging to the great heritage of the British Empire.
But the collective memory need not be anything as illustrious the Roman or British heritage. It could be a subculture or a radical social movement. Anything that makes one believe he or she is part of a special order, community, and a tradition. Thus, anyone from any part of the world could become a ‘cinephile’, read up on film history, watch a bunch of movies, and feel as part of a tradition/community of film appreciation.

Because humans are social beings, they naturally want to feel as belonging to a group. Even so-called cosmopolitans who pride themselves on being ‘citizens of the world’ have their preferred communities and networks. Surely, no one, not even the most committed cosmopolitan, has visited every nation, every community, studied every culture, met with people of every creed or tradition, and etc. Some cosmopolitans tend to be Francophiles, others tend to be Anglophiles. Some are Japanophiles while others are mainly interested in settling and dealing with Latin American issues or Jewish/Zionist issues. And given that English is the world language and US/EU(dominated by Jews and homos) are the cultural, political, and economic shakers of the world, being cosmopolitan today essentially means being an agent, consciously or unconsciously, of Jewish-homo power and influence that dominates the Anglophone world.
After all, why are many more American cosmopolitans concerned with homo agenda issues than with Palestinian issues? Why are Western cosmopolitans far more slavish to Jewish interests than to Russian, Polish, Chinese, or Wasp interests? And how come Poland and Hungary are being reshaped and remade by Jewish/Zionist interests than vice versa? Cosmopolitanism doesn’t mean that all the peoples of the world are equal as ‘global citizens’. It mean that some ‘global citizens’ who wield the most power(namely Jews and homos)get to define the rules of ‘cosmopolitanism’ for all the other would-be ‘cosmopolitans’ eager to be allowed into the elite globalist club. If Poland and Hungary want to join fully, they must erect countless Holocaust memorials and bend over to ‘gay marriage’.

‘Cosmopolitanism’, like ‘anti-racism’, is not consistent and uniform in its conceptualization, application, and execution. The West prides itself on ‘anti-racism’, but the rules change and vary depending on who does the accusing and who gets accused. So, Jews can be ‘racist’ against white gentiles — constantly carping about ‘white privilege’ though whites cannot carp about ‘Jewish privilege’ — and Muslims, but everyone has to be sensitive about Jews. White gentiles must confess their great sins against Jews and blacks, but they need not be as contrite about what they did to American Indians, Arabs/Muslims, or Asians — almost no one knows about the 200,000 Filipinos who died as the result of US takeover of the island nation from the Spanish Empire.
If most Americans said they would not vote for a Jew for president, it would be a huge controversy, but if they said they would not vote for an Arab/Muslim, Asian, Mexican-American, or Mormon for president, it’d hardly be news. White ‘racism’ is deemed evil against blacks but permissible and even encouraged against Arabs/Muslims and Russians(who are often depicted as subhuman by the Jewish-controlled media). One better not rail against Zionists and Jews in America, but one can go on and on about how wicked and vile Palestinians are. Indeed, for a nation that prides itself on ‘anti-racism’ and championing the underdog, the vast majority of Americans sympathize more with Zionist oppressors than with oppressed Palestinians.
Like the game of ‘anti-racism’, the rules of ‘cosmopolitanism’ rely on who has the power and privilege. Today, Jews and homos essentially control the essence of what ‘cosmopolitanism’ is about, and everyone else follows slavishly to be allowed into the elite globalist club, the keys of which are in held in US and EU.

Anyway, if identitarianism and root-ism(one’s sense of roots and origins) are innate, natural, and hardwired into us, it’s only natural that white people, like anyone else, want to feel a strong sense of who they are and what they are. The problem is white people in the West are forbidden from developing any viable and visible sense of whiteness, white pride, white consciousness, white heritage, and white identity. Though non-whites are given greater leeway — even encouraged in some cases — to develop a sense of who and what they are and whence they came, white people are discouraged from looking into their own roots. On occasion when whites are allowed some measure of historical memory, it usually has to do with ‘white guilt’ over slavery, Crusades, wars, conquests, ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, the Holocaust, and etc. It’s more about roots of evil and than roots of pride and self-respect.

And when it comes to the issues of the present, whites are encouraged to identify with non-whites, marry non-whites, have children with non-whites, welcome more non-whites, and work against white interests. Sometimes, this gets somewhat strange since the urban Liberal landscape has turned very white(and Jewish and somewhat yellow) in recent years, but then, even white Liberals in their ‘whitopias’ are encouraged to spend an inordinate amount of time genuflecting on their undeserved ‘white privilege’ and atoning for their ‘subconscious racism’ by hating on white Southerners who, in the white Liberal fantasies, are going around lynching helpless blacks when, in fact, most of the horrific interracial violence in the Deep South have been black-on-white for a very long time, not least because blacks are naturally bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than whites.

Since whites aren’t permitted to get much satisfaction from white identity and white roots, how can they fulfill their innate desire for tribalism and community? Their repressed nature must be projected onto other identities, and the two most appealing ones at the moment is Zionism and homo-ism.
Zionism is especially appealing to white Conservatives, and ‘gay identity’ is especially appealing to white Liberals. Via Zionism, white Conservatism can feel morally redeemed by being associated with the Holocaust Tribe. As the white gentile Right had long been ‘tainted’ with ‘antisemitism’, it feels righteous for white Conservatives to feel as one with the Jewish Tribe in the iron resolve of ‘Never Again’. Of course, most Jews see white Conservatives as dummies or neanderthals, but white Conservatives, being dumb or just plain craven/cynical, love to fantasize that they themselves and Jews are natural allies and that it’s only a matter of time before the bulk of the Jewish community will join with white Conservatives to rule the world together. White Conservatives are supposedly the ‘indispensable allies and friends’ of the great, noble Jewish people.

There’s plenty of Jew-worship among American Liberals, but Zionism has lost some of its luster in the ‘progressive’ community because of the Neocon and Neo-Confederate alliance in the GOP. Besides, even though white Liberals also subscribe to the holy writ of ‘Never Again’, they feel some degree of unease in pretending that powerful Zionists of Israel face an ‘existential threat’ from utterly powerless & dispossessed Palestinians and from Iran whose ‘nuclear threat’ sounds more and more like a case of ‘Never Cry Wolf’ than ‘Never Again’.
So, the preferred ersatz identitarianism among white Liberalism is ‘gay pride’, not least because homos spearheaded the gentrification juggernaut(or buggernaut) that drove out the criminal and low-income blacks from big cities, thus making them ripe for the settlement of neo-yuppies since the Clintonite 90s.

Though white Conservative support of Jews and white Liberal embrace of the ‘gay’ community may be seen as ‘healthy’ rejections of white race-ism, nationalism, or tribalism, they are paradoxically the products of white identarianism that has been forced into repression and channeled toward serving the identities of other groups. Thus, they are not so much cases of abnegation of white race-ism but transference of white race-ism to other politics of identity. Indeed, if white race-ism were totally exterminated from the white heart, whites would no longer feel a need for any kind of identitarianism, and there would be nothing left to repress or transfer. As such, whites would find no joy in siding with Jews or getting all nutty at a ‘gay pride’ parade. It is because whites, like any other group, are naturally race-ist and identitarian that they need some kind of outlet for their natural rootist drives.
It’s like a communist who worships Marx or a consumerist who worships John Lennon isn’t so much a case of a man purged of spirituality but a case of a man transferring his spiritual nature onto larger-than-life idols as substitute gods.

Anyway, identity transference is a kind of slavery. Imagine being a parent and neglecting your own children while devoting all your attention on the children of another parent. Indeed, suppose you’ve been told that it’s wrong for you to love and take care of your own children and instead must shower all your love on the children of other parents. It’d be like a black mammy who feels her main priority is to provide milk for ‘white chillun’ of her massuh/master while making her own black kids wait for the milk(or just plain starve).
Why should white folks become like a cow whose teats produce milk not for its own calves but for human consumption? As things stand, white folks have been brainwashed to shed tears and produce the ‘milk of human kindness’ for other races. Now, there’s nothing wrong with feeling sympathy for other peoples and even being critical of your own people. But there’s a big difference between empathizing/sympathizing with other people and serving other people at the expense of your own people. Didn’t Lawrence of Arabia discover that, in the end, he wasn’t and could not be an Arab. He had to go home and become British again. It’s time for the white race to come home. It’s time for them to stop transferring their identitarianism to other peoples, especially hideous Jews, vicious Negroes, and nasty homos. White feelings of identitarianism must come home and serve white identity and white interests.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

We all know that the main cause of the American Civil War was Abraham Lincoln’s determination to preserve the Union. The South didn’t want a war when it seceded from the Union. It wanted to be left alone. And its right to secede was guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. But Lincoln believed in the sacredness of the Union and unleashed a devastating war that forced the South back into the Union and greatly expanded the power of federal government.

But what was the catalyst for the secession that led to Lincoln’s declaration of war? Obviously the answer would seem to have been slavery. But was it really? Could it be argued that the issues surrounding the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians really brought on the Civil War? I put quotes around genocide since not everyone is agreed that it was genocide. After all, reservations were set aside for Indians. Furthermore, most American Indians died as a result of European diseases against which they had no immunity. And there’s hardly any proof that white folks spread diseases to specifically target and kill native peoples of America. But, in our politically correct age, many ‘progressives’ will insist that what took place was indeed a form of genocide. And I suppose, based on UN definition of genocide, the destruction of the American Indian way of life could be construed as a form of genocide(though nothing like the Holocaust). To be sure, the UN definition tends to be varied in application. So, what the Zionists did to the Palestinians isn’t construed as genocide, but if another people were to do to Jewish Israelis what Zionists once did to Palestinians, you bet the world community(under the control of Jewish globalist supremacists)would condemn it as ‘genocide’. So, there’s a good deal of ‘who, whom’ when it comes to the issue of genocide. By the way, because what Jews did to Palestinians was so much like what white folks did to the Indians, globo-Zionists of late have de-emphasized the tragic narrative of the Indians(who are deemed to be happy with their casinos managed mostly by Jews). So, the ‘original sin’ of America is now said to be slavery than the conquest and ‘genocide’ of American Indians.

Anyway, for the sake of argument, let’s say what happened to American Indians was ‘genocide’. As white folks moved westward, they had no choice but to wage war on the Indians. They had to forcibly remove Indians from their ancestral lands. Even when Indians signed peace agreements, white folks eventually wanted Indians off most of the land so that white folks could build towns and cities and farm the fields. So, even though there was no plan to wipe out every Indian — though such sentiments did accompany the wars waged on Indian folks — , there was a lot of violence done to Indians who, in turn, fought back as best they could(and committed atrocities as well). Manifest Destiny wasn’t possible without the ‘genocide’ of the native tribesmen of the prairies. To settle and build up the Western wilderness, Indians had to go. If they didn’t go peacefully, they had to be conquered and forced into reservations growing ever smaller, like what happens in the TV series CENTENNIAL(based on James Michener’s novel). And even when Indians wanted to assimilate, they weren’t wanted by white folks and forced to move into areas set aside for ‘red savages’.

Now, would slavery have been such a hot-button issue if western expansion-and-‘genocide’ had come to a standstill in, say, 1850? Slavery became a major issue because Americans wanted to expand westward(especially with the defeat of Mexico and their loss of SW territories to Americans), and this ambition was stronger in the North — with more people, immigrants, technology, and investment capital — than in the South. So, white Northerners were more eager to commit ‘genocide’ against Indians in the West, take the land, and create a bigger nation. Had Americans stopped expanding westward, there would have been equal number of ‘free states’ and ‘slave states’. And the South and North would have been okay with the balance. It was because Americans were committed to expanding westward that the Southern ‘slave states’ insisted that, for every new ‘free state’ created in the West, a new ‘slave state’ be created as well to maintain the electoral balance. And so, the debate got ever more heated up.
Now, one might argue that the Northern States were morally superior to the Southern States since they wanted to create ‘free states’ in the new western territories. But in creating new states in the West, Northern Whites had to carry out ‘genocide’ against the native folks. Indeed, the creation of new ‘free states’ was bound to commit more ‘genocide’ than the creation of new ‘slave states’ because the new ‘free states’ targeted northern areas that were less settled. In contrast, new ‘slave states’ aimed for Southwest Territories that had already been somewhat tamed and settled by Spanish Conquistadores and Mexicans. Many of the Indians in those regions had already been defeated, tamed, quelled, or suppressed by encroachments of civilization from the Latin South and Anglo East. In contrast, much of the northern half of western territories was still inhabited by ‘savage’ Red Indians. These new ‘free states’ would have to be created through extensive ‘genocide’ of the native folks on their ancestral lands.

So, this complicates the moral issue. The favored Narrative would have us believe that decent(or at least more decent) Northern Whites, appalled by the institution of slavery, waged war on the ‘racist’ South to end slavery and preserve the Union. But would the debate about slavery have grown so heated if not for the westward expansion that called for the ‘genocide’ of Indians? We are told that genocide is worse than slavery. Slavery may be unjust and cruel, but at least you’re not destroying a people. In contrast, genocide is about the massive destruction of a people. So, how good and noble were the Northern whites if they were committed to a war and ‘genocide’ against an entire race of indigenous people whose ancestors had lived on the land that whites wanted for themselves? And it wasn’t just Anglo Northerners but immigrant newcomers who wanted to settle the lands of the West. And plenty of Jewish businessmen went to the West to sell guns and wares to white folks who were waging wars on the Indians. So, the very white Northern folks who bewailed the evil institution of slavery were eyeing the West for what were to be wars of conquest and racial ‘genocide’. (And Jews did the same to Palestinians in the 20th century.)
Of course, Southern whites were for westward expansion and ‘genocide’ too, but most of the initiative, capital, drive, and investment for western expansion came from the North. And these do-goody Northern white folks, who claimed to care so much about the Negro, didn’t give a rat’s ass about what would happen to the ‘red savages’. And Jewish bankers in the East were no less eager than Anglo bankers to fund the vast enterprise that would have a devastating impact on the native folks of America(though, to be sure, one could argue that American Indians today got it pretty good with modern appliances and TV).

So, if some white northern Liberal condemns a white southerner for the history of slavery, the latter should shoot back and accuse the white northern Liberal that his/her ancestors led the movement of ‘genocide’ against the native peoples of America, especially as it was the northern states that concentrated on banking, heavy industry, and rising immigration, all of which came together to push for more westward expansion at the expense of American Indians whose fate could be nothing but ‘genocide’. If white northerners say, "you southern whites enslaved blacks", just shoot back, "you northern whites and immigrant communities(including Jews) expanded westward more than we southerners did, and you carried out massive genocide against the American Indians."

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Paradoxically, control over the masses can be made more effective through animilzation and infantilization. Such a gambit sounds counter-intuitive since people who act like childish animals are surely out-of-control and harder to manage. After all, imagine if people were like wild animals throwing tantrums like children. How could you control such lunacy? And in the 1960s, when youth culture was getting out of hand, even liberals began to wonder if Western Civilization was going to pot. Woodstock and Altamont concerts got a bit crazy, and the BAD NEWS BEARS slovenliness of the 1970s certainly didn’t do much for the human spirit. As Steven Pinker wrote in BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE, the Pop-Rousseau-ist philosophy of New Society and Counterculture led to much social disruption and political disillusionment. They also led to social reaction among the ‘silent majority’ and the victories of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. .

While animals and children can be quite a handful and the cause of headaches, they are also easy to manipulate, hoodwink, and train. After all, even tigers and bears can be made to do dumb tricks that no self-respecting free person would allow for himself. Even horses and elephants — many times stronger than man — can be trained to do as man orders them. And children may cry and throw tantrums, but they can be made to believe in anything through emotional/visceral manipulation. They can be silenced with the promise of candy or the warning that if they don’t stop crying, the bogeyman is going to come and take them away. They can be made to believe in Santa Claus, fairies, and angels. They can be made to worship Superman, Spiderman, and the Hulk. They can be made to worship Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Bush, or Obama. They can be made to fantasize days on end about HARRY POTTER. They can even be fooled into believing HUNGER GAMES is meaningful satire. Though animals and children have more impulsive emotions, the primacy of their emotions over ideas, values, and conviction means that their feelings can be made to run around in circles, fetch this, roll over for that, and etc.
Also, as animalism and infantilism don’t allow for proper development of a meaningful sense of selfhood, immature folks tend to seek the attention and approval of others. They often do this by imitating the famous, ‘cool’, and ‘hip’. So, even their sense of faux individuality is really a form of mindless imitation. If some famous athlete or singer got tattoos, they got to have tattoos too. So, even as they do stuff to convey, "this is Me", all they ever do is ape others so as to gain attention and approval from the ‘cool’ crowd who are enthused with the same junk. Especially today, when lewd and lurid pop culture can no longer shock, the competition is to do something a bit ‘louder’ so that it will gain more traction. So, no one was surprised or shocked by Miley Cyrus’s dumb act, but she did it so brazenly at an award ceremony that it dominated the media buzz for awhile. Of course, Jew-homo media encourage such thing as a War on Tradition. The buzz wasn’t about shock vs non-shock but extra-shock vs post-shock. In a world of post-shock syndrome, the trick is to pull the same dirty nonsense but with bit more tang. The same logic holds in youtube where there are so many voices and personalities that every would-be star begs for attention with bit more nuttiness than others. But a game of nuttierer among the nuttier gets tiresome fast.

Pink Stink. The apelike 'niggerization' of the white race.

Why did ‘gay marriage’ gain such rapid success in America and Europe? (It isn’t merely a legal issue but THE spiritual crusade pitting Good against Evil for countless millennial dolts in America, EU, and even Asia and Latin America. Millennials took to ‘gay marriage’ like they took to HARRY POTTER and like Americans old and young took to the sham cult of Oprah.) It’s because so many young adults have been infantilized and animalized. And ‘millennials’ have been discouraged from growing up as the result of constant barrages of dumb Rap music, porny stuff, idiot ‘vlogs’, Trash TV, videogames, social networking(that encourages conformism and being ‘liked’) and worse. The steady diet have turned them into intellectually, morally, and culturally stunted dolts. If you think the 80s generation suffered from Attention Deficit Disorder, you aint seen nothing yet. Today’s youth have more access to more stuff than any previous generation, but few ever sit down to learn or investigate anything to any depth. It’s mostly ‘hipster’ and glamoron blowhards yammering endlessly about stuff they know nothing about or stuff not even worth knowing. And much of internet journalism is just about maximizing ‘clickbaits’(which is why the original members of The New Republic quit the magazine when fruitboy Chris Hughes tried to turn it into another Buzzfeed), and virtually all youtube vlogs by millennials — trust me, I did some research — are just about the most braindead crap I ever did see. (And I thought my generation was the dumbest ever.) There’s certainly a lot of snap, crackle, and pop, but it’s all infantile-animalistic noxiousness without form, meaning, shape, or direction. It’s just so much blah-blah-blah-cuz-I-feel-like-it. Millennials may feel ‘empowered’ because they have such ready forum for whatever’s on their minds(or the empty spaces between their ears), but they all say the same thing and speak in the same manner: "Hey guys! Hey guys!" Because they’re all about the groove, the vibe, the buzz, the spunk, or whatever, they don’t have anything like genuine emotions, real ideas, or authentic values. It’s all about ‘whatever I feel like at the moment’... that might get me attention and approval from the greatest number of people. Thus, millennials at once sound very spontaneous and assertive, but they’ve been mentally conditioned and trained to be spontaneous only in the ‘acceptable’ way. It’s like dogs seem to bark spontaneously but only at certain kinds of people; it won’t ever bark that way at their masters. PC dogs work the same way. They sound so strong-willed and impassioned when they bark, but they’ve been programmed to bark only at specific targets while shutting up and rolling over on other occasions. If by accident they bark up the wrong tree, they immediately feel the whip and turn instantly from angry dog to a scaredy cat. (At times, they are confused. For a while, feminists weren’t sure they were supposed to bark at transvestites as nasty men or praise them as ‘fellow women’. But due to the cult of homo-worship, most feminists have come down on the side of rolling over for ‘trannies’.)
Because most millennials are such mindless dolts, the elites are sometimes frustrated as to what is to be done with them. One thing for sure, if indeed the elites’ primary goal is to guide and shape millennials into thinkers and critics, they have a tough road ahead of them. But if the elites just wanna lead the millennials like cattle, all the better that millennials are all about the snap, crackle, and pop than about real thought, ideas, and values. Whatever passes for ‘ideas’ and ‘values’ millennials may have, it’s been instilled through emotive manipulations of sentiments and erotic jolts of sensations.

THE WILD BUNCH - Angel confronts Teresa

Consider the scene in THE WILD BUNCH after Angel, in a fit of enraged jealousy, shoots his former lover Teresa. There’s a tense moment as the Mexicans aim their guns at the ‘gringos’ and Angel and demand to know "Why did he try to kill his excellency?" Just then, Pike Bishop(William Holden) says, "He wasn’t trying to kill his excellency. He was after the girl." Then, the Mexicans are laughing like crazy and think it’s all very funny. Why was Pike able to diffuse the tense situation? Because Mexicans are like animallike children. General Mapaahe (Emilio Fernandez) thinks it’s a riot and starts to crack up, and all other Mexicans are laughing along. The only ones who aren’t laughing at the German advisers, and of course, they are not so easy to toy with. Mexicans may be more out-of-control, but that’s precisely why they are, in some ways, easier to control. Just make them laugh and get them drunk, and they go into the fiesta mode of tomfoolery and whatever-happens-to-be-pleasurable at the moment. (Of course, there’s a downside to such tomfooleriness. While the populace may be easier to manipulate by means of cheers and jeers, it doesn’t do much for morale. Mapache’s men are not the kind to put their lives on the line. Even after Mapache is shot by Pike Bishop and Dutch Angstrom[Ernest Borgnine], the soldiers decide to fight only because Pike then shoots the German officer and takes the fight to them. In THE GODFATHER PART II, Michael Corleone, upon witnessing a guerrilla sacrifice his life for the Revolution, says the Castro-ites can win because they are willing to die for a cause. In contrast, Cuban army consists of mercenaries paid to fight. Similarly, US could manipulate the people of South Vietnam with coca-cola, chewing gum, cash, and prizes, but the South Vietnamese were not willing to lay down their lives for the American cause. As long as the largesse flowed from American coffers, South Vietnamese were dancing the twist and offering their women as prostitutes to American G.I.s. But were they willing to fight for the ideas and values imposed by Americans? No. And this is one of the problems of American Liberalism. It might have a lot of fans with all its buzz, action, glitz, and showbiz antics, but it’s empty of genuine values. Its values are those of Las Vegas or Havana before the Revolution. Will anyone really lay down his or her life for ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay pride parade’? On the other hand, maybe. If old-style decadence was sold as merely shameless excess, new-style decadence has been moralized. Remember the big-penised ‘superman’ in THE GODFATHER PART II at the sex performance where Fredo spilled the beans that he had contacts with Hyman Roth? Back then, the big-dicked freak was just that, a figure of decadence and perversion. Today, he might be promoted by PC and admired by millennial morons as ‘hero’, ‘role model’, ‘empowered and liberated’ member of sexual liberation, or some such. When Lavergne Cox the Negro transvestite is sold as the moral paragon of the age, decadence has been made the New Decency. And it is through the homo cult that elite decadence and mass decadence are united. Elite decadence tends to be more effeminate[like in the icky movie HER by Spike Jonze] while mass decadence tends to be vulgar and lewd[like Miley Cyrus, rapping hos ‘twerking’ their butts, and JERRY SPRINGER SHOW]. In the ancient Roman world, elites grew decadent in their own fanciful way whereas the poor got decadent in their own crude ways, and both rotted away in their own manner, and in the end, neither was willing to defend Rome from the Germanic barbarians. It’s like the Cuban elites and Cuban masses grew decadent in their own way before the Revolution that came Travis-Bickle-like to wash away all the trash. Dissipated Cuban elites dilly-dallied with foreign elites and hung around casinos, and Cuban masses shook their asses like gorilla-apes while munching on bananas and watermelon. Both groups turned rotten and corrupt. Then the Revolution came and kicked out the parasitic Cuban elites, and then it waged war on mass decadence and shaped the Cuban masses into hard working revolutionaries on the farm and factories. Unfortunately, Castro chose the Marxist path than the fascist path. He should have chosen something like national socialism than communism. With national socialist fascism, he could have waged on war on decadence, kicked out the globalist imperialists, and built a viable economy that favored the middle classes and honest rich folks. But he attacked all private property, and that is always a recipe for economic disaster.)
Though there are various kinds of popular culture — some of them quite wonderful, decent, and ennobling — , the kind of popular culture that has grown pervasive in our times might be called Pop Cult. Pop Cult is the promotion and practice of diabolical, trashy, ugly, putrid, decadent, and debased popular culture as the core ‘spiritual’ and ‘moral’ experience and embodiment of one’s life. A John Ford movie is popular culture at its best. Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga are part of Pop Cult. People who love popular culture may not see it as the center of one’s life. They value popular culture for its entertainment value. And some works of popular culture are to be lauded for their artistic and moral value. How can one not be moved by SHANE or DOCTOR ZHIVAGO? But then, sane and responsible people have a vision and experience of life apart from popular culture. They value family, history, heritage, community, cultural consciousness, racial consciousness, morality, ethics, and artistic/intellectual curiosity, all of which deepen one’s sense of perspective, meaning, and even timeless truth.

Pop Cult 'values'. Here today, gone tomorrow. Fashion and fads can never be the basis of true meaning.

In contrast, popular culture tends to favor the fashionable and faddish. Indeed, most of popular culture is soon forgotten, and only a handful gain classic status. So, for people with good sense whose lives are centered around loftier and deeper values, popular culture is enjoyed or appreciated for what it is. It cannot be the substitute for deeper and/or timeless values.
But for those into Pop Cult mentality, the ‘popular’ is more ‘real’ than real. It’s like a drug. Indeed, a junkie is someone who prefers the ‘high reality’ he gets from drugs than the real reality grounded in the actual experience of the world.
Or, suppose we use the analogy of food. If we approach junk food for what it is, it can’t do us much harm. Some junk food once in awhile might even do us some good because dietary puritanism makes life dull and boring. So, once in awhile, we can have a sodapop or french fries or candy. But suppose someone makes junk food the center of his diet. It will ruin his health. What over-indulgence in junk food does to the body, over-indulgence in Pop Cult does to the soul.

The new gospel according to Jewish oligarchs. Obama is angelic because he believes Barney Frank's fecal hole is the sexual equivalent of a woman's vagina. He's the messiah because he thinks men who cut off their penises to be 'women' are the moral heroes of our age. Yet, American Conservatives who worship Jewish Power are more than willing to bend over to 'gay marriage'. America is now an evil country.

Because Pop Cult is all about fads and fashion, Pop Cultists have no real value, virtue, or conviction. It’s all about whatever-is-hip-or-hot-at-the-moment. When morality, ethics, values, and ideas take on the form of Pop Cult — constantly warped and morphed with emotional and/or sensory/sensual manipulation of sounds, imagery, pageantry, hyperbole, hysteria, euphoria, ‘orgasmoria’, and ecstasy — , then one no longer has any core convictions since convictions are just a matter of whatever-is-made-to-feel-right-at-the-moment. It’s like Twitter operates not by reasoned debate or exchange of intelligently expressed points of view but through emotive ‘hashtags’, hipster ‘snark’, pied piper sloganeering, and celebrity-mania.
It’s like the ‘gay’ agenda is all about rallies, pageantries, ‘rainbow’ colors splashed all over, ‘sacralized’ images of clean-cut homos ‘getting married’, and etc. Of course, most of this has been funded by billionaire Jewish oligarchs who run the media. And of course, government officials[who push the ‘gay agenda’] are appointed by politicians bought and sold by the billionaire Jewish oligarchs. And there’s an incestuous relationship among Jews of Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, music industry, government, law firms, and academia. And since these high-IQ Jews look down on the dumb goy masses, they figure it’s better to fudge and nudge with goy toy minds via the power of Pop Cultism.

When homos were forced to repress their perversion, they sublimated their passions and created great art during the Renaissance. Now that homos have come out of the closet and bedroom into the streets, their 'creativity' is devoted to narcissistic self-worship of their perverted lifestyles. But this nihilism is promoted by Jewish oligarchs in Wall Street, Hollywood, and Las Vegas as the New Normal Morality.

While there’s a limit to which animals and children can be made to understand or do anything, that’s about all that the Jewish elites expect of most goy dummies. Since Jewish elites see most people are a bunch of morons[like how Bugs Bunny sees Elmer Fudd], the main objective is to keep them in line and keep them happy with stupid diversions. Indeed, keeping them happy with stupid diversions is to keep them in line. Furthermore, the dummies are made to believe that stupid diversions have ‘spiritual’ and ‘moral’ value. Of course, people who fall for such nonsense can be made to feel and believe anything. Idiots who worship Oprah as their savior and believe in the mountain-sized Negro of GREEN MILE as their angel can be made to believe in anything. So, Pop Cult both coarsens and controls the masses. A coarsened public can be made to laugh like barbarian retards at anything, but they can also be made to cry and go boo-hoo-hoo at anything. So, the very idiots who laugh like morons at Quentin Tarantino’s PULP FICTION and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS are also the same idiots who get all weepy over FORREST GUMP and BLIND SIDE. Monstrousness and mushiness are the two sides of the same coin. Children can easily be made to feel/act monstrously or mushily. Young people are suckers. Red Guards of China could be so mushy about Mao, bawling like babies in his presence, indeed as if he were their god, hero, father, and messiah. But these mush-heads could also be made to attack and destroy others with blind fury.

Or consider dogs. Dogs can be so mushy-gooey-loyal to their masters, but they can also be made to viciously and mindlessly attack others. As far as Jews are concerned, these are the characteristics to be encouraged among dumb goy masses. As long as Jews control the academia, media, advertising, entertainment, and government, they can mold and control the emotions of both mushiness and monstrousness. So, PC makes millennials weep like boo-boo babies over MLK and Mandela. They get all smiley-faced devoted to ‘saintly homos’. But these mush-heads can also be made to be monstrously vicious — like Red Guards — at anyone or anything that disagrees with their mushy feelings of right-and-wrong. Since homos have been mushily ‘sacralized’, anyone who won’t bend over to ‘gay marriage’ must be Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!!!! Get the witch!!! Burn the witch!!!!
This is why Jews have pushed the Pussy Riot in Russia. During the Cold War, because the communist bloc was so ‘drab’ and repressive, we could understand why young people behind the ‘Iron Curtain’ hankered for Rock music and culture. And Rock is lots of fun. But as Russians soon found out in the 1990s, Pop Cult cannot be the core basis for any healthy society. It should only serve as a diversion. A society without social order, moral unity, and national economy will suffer from Pop Cult that will only spread hedonism, infantilism, drug abuse, sexual licentiousness/disease/prostitution, and the like. After all, US and Europe didn’t develop into mature economies because everyone rock n’ rolled all night long. Indeed, US and Europe developed their economies long before the rise of youth culture and Elvis Presley. And the real assets were social order, work ethic, rule of law, property laws, community values, and individual responsibility. Rock culture is the hedonistic byproduct of Western economic success, not the cause of it. If Rock culture can build a healthy economy and political system, then every failed state only needs to have a lot of rock concerts. But who thinks Haiti or Pakistan will become rich simply by throwing rock concerts or encouraging kids to act like Miley Cyrus? Russians came to understand this as their economy and society imploded in the 1990s. They learned that Pop Cult is not the answer. Russians needed social order, property rights, strong military, patriotism, unity, and appreciation of family, heritage, and nation. And Vladimir Putin pushed those values. This made Jews angry since Jews want to animalize and infantilize Russians into Pop Cultist dolts who can be manipulated like childish animals on a leash. So, Jews want Red Square to be conquered by homo ‘pride’ parades. (Some might point out NY, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles as proof that Pop Cultism is a formula for success. After all, they all promote the cult of homomania and are saturated with popular culture. But it would be fallacious to reach that conclusion. While it may be true that, currently at least, the best talents are drawn to cities that celebrate cultural decadence, we mustn’t think that cultural decadence itself is the cause of economic success. For example, suppose the best talents gravitate to a city where marijuana is legal. That doesn’t mean marijuana is the cause of success. The fact is, despite the outward displays of decadence, many people in NY, San Francisco, Seattle, and other such places are hard working people who wake up everyday, go to school or their professions, and give all they got to do their jobs and pay their taxes. If indeed homomania is all it takes to build a rich society, then have Haiti and Detroit throw ‘gay pride’ parades and see if their economies improve. Only an idiot would believe in such thing.) For Russians, Red Square is rich in historical memory. Russian troops laid down French flags after the defeat of Napoleon. Millions died in that war. In the Great Patriotic War, over 20 million Soviets died fighting the Germans, and Soviet troops proudly threw Nazi flags on Red Square and marched victoriously in honor of the motherland. Jews want to sever the Russian soul from such historical memory, just like they cut off the white American soul from glorious memory of historical triumphs. White Americans are only allowed to hate themselves for ‘white guilt’. And since white girls have no racial-historical memory, they feel no bond to the past, no responsibility to maintain the unity and integrity of the race. Instead, the only history they know is worship of MLK and the only social ideal they know is hooking up with some Negro male to have mulatto babies so as to redeem their ‘racist’ vaginas that, furthermore, have been made to hanker for mandingos. White women no longer have any special connection to white men, white history, white unity, white race, or white anything. By promoting the Pussy Riot — the ‘punk’ consumerist verison of Red Guards — , Jews seek to deracinate Russians as well. Since Putin defied globalist Jewry, Jews have sunk the Russian economy and are now maneuvering to draw Russia into a conflict in Ukaine and cause mayhem like the one in the Middle East. And yet, most American Conservatives, having been mentally trashed and dumbed down by Fox News and Talk Radio, think Jews are their best friends and Russians are their worst enemies — after Iranians. Jews must surely be laughing at dumb goyim. And because so many Americans, especially millennials, are so deeply into Pop Cult — where the worst excesses of popular culture aren’t merely enjoyed but embraced as the core ‘spiritual’ and ‘moral’ meaning of life — , they sincerely think Russia is an evil country for not allowing Pussy Riot to do as they please and for not allowing a ‘gay pride’ parade to take over Red Square. Dumb millennials know nothing of the sacrifices of the Great Patriotic War. They just worship homos as angels, therefore, any society that doesn’t permit homos to run riot as they please must be the ‘new Nazi state’. This is how many millennials really feel and ‘think’ in their demented Pop Cultitude. In a way, one could say it’s the Political Warholization(akin to ‘Cultural Marxism’) or Pop Politics. Andy Warhol wasn’t political, but his brand of consumerism and celebrity-ism have been turned into political-cultural weapons by Jewish globalists. Pussy Riot is Warhol-turned-into-culture-war. Millennials brainwashed with this stuff feel ‘morally’ offended when others don’t admire what they do. It’s sort of like a child being angry with his parents because they don’t worship STAR WARS like he does. Since millennial idiots worship the Pop Cultism of homos, they expect the entire world to bend over to its Force as well. They are dogs who want the entire world to bark along to the Jewish-supremacist homo tune.

Jews want Russians to look to the Pop Cult of Pussy Riot as their main cultural and moral inspiration. How about sending Pussy Riot to Israel to piss on the Wailing Wall? Of course, Jews would call that a 'hate crime'. Are there a people as rotten and hideous as the Jews?

People who live by sensations, euphoria, and hysterics have no real value, no real conviction. This is why feminists have been so quick to cave in to the rise of trans-gender power. Since much of feminism has been about insipid tantrums of righteousness than making any real sense, when something comes along with intenser riotousness of righteousness, feminism doesn’t know what to do. So, even VAGINA MONOLOGUES has been canceled at a certain college because it’s now deemed ‘insensitive’ to the feelings of trans-gender folks without real vaginas. If feminism was about real ideas and real conviction, it wouldn’t allow such nonsense. But because it was mostly about mindless self-righteous hysterics, when the powers-that-be promoted trans-gender stuff as even ‘nobler’, ‘more urgent/relevant’, and ‘more fashionable’ in the righteous sweepstakes, feminists just folded and cowered. Since trans-gender freaks are allied with homos — who are currently just below Jews in ‘holy’ hierarchy — , feminists feel that the fashionable thing is to give trans-gender freaks what they demand.
Pop Cult dominates much of our culture. Even American Conservatives are not immune. It’s because American Conservatism is so dumb, trashy, childish, and infantile that it can be manipulated to serve Jews. Even though Jews exploit and manipulate white goyim endlessly, dumb emotive Talk Radio have convinced a lot of hothead Conservative dummies that ‘muzzies’ are the main enemies of America, that Sharia Law is just around the corner(which is like American farmers believing during World War II that ‘Japs’ are about to invade Kansas), that Jews are the best friends of Christians, and that supporting Israel(and destroying Russia and Iran) is what good ole US of A is all about. Even though Jews have done most to undermine the white race(especially the sacred sexual unity of white men and white women by turning white women onto Negroes), trash Christianity, overwhelm white demographics in the West, promote ‘white guilt’ as substitute for white pride and Western heritage/consciousness, the majority of American Conservatives hooked to the sound-and-fury of Talk Radio, gungho-ism of movies like AMERICAN SNIPER, and FOX news think nothing is more American-as-Apple-Pie than sucking up to Jews. Just look at the disgusting Sarah Palin who is little more than a stripper-whore for AIPAC oligarchs. Even though American Conservatives should call out the Jews as the culprits who pushed ‘gay marriage’ all across America, they just bitch about ‘muzzies’ and yammer about how Jews must come together to save Jews from another ‘holocaust’ that is being hatched by Obama the ‘secret Muslim’. Yes, by Obama the guy who was groomed and installed in the White House by Jewish oligarchs. Sheesh.

The ancient Romans knew all about how this works. This is why they came up with Bread and Circuses. Give the idiots bread, give the idiots entertainment. Romans conquered other lands and brought home the loot. Romans handed out bread to the lumpen Romans and subject peoples. And for entertainment, Romans made captured soldier and slaves from other regions fight to the death. And the masses munched on bread and cheered as the bloodbath raged. This way, Romans harnessed and channeled the barbaric energies of the masses with bread and entertainment. But the entertainment also has a political objective in making the masses cheer for Roman power and glory since the gladiators were captured soldiers and slaves who had no choice but to fight to the death. Roman way of Bread and Circuses both encouraged and controlled the animal-infantile energies of the masses. Such dolts addicted to entertainment and sensations were easy to control, at least as long as the bread lasted and games went on.

How much more difficult the masses would have been to control if they were people of ideas, vision, conviction, and heritage that couldn’t easily be swayed or tossed to the winds by temptations of bread and circus. Of course, there was one people that the Romans couldn’t win over and conquer. They were the Jews. Why? Because Jews had a powerful sense of their own heritage, history, values, and spirituality. Most subject peoples were totally impressed by and surrendered themselves to Roman might, but Jews held the conviction that there was a greater power, that of their own God who had chosen them as His special children. While some Jews collaborated, even they maintained their powerful sense of separateness from the Roman attempts to win the masses(both Romans and subject peoples) over with childish and animalistic appeals to Bread and Circuses. Even when Romans destroyed Jerusalem and expelled the Jews, the Jews maintained their identity, culture, heritage, and ideas. Their own narrative. They couldn’t be distracted or bought by Bread and Circuses. In time, Jews outlasted the Romans who came to an inglorious end when the bread ran out and circuses became unsustainable. Roman elites, from using Bread and Circuses to control the masses, choked on their own poison. They lost the meaning of what it meant to be Roman.
This is where American Jewish overlords are different. Sure, they use Bread and Circuses to animalize and infantilize us so as to control and lead us by the nose, but deep down inside, they maintain their powerful sense of Jewishness. Consider Sheldon Adelson and Arnon Milchan who made tremendous amounts of money by selling us Bread and Circuses but will do ANYTHING for Jewish power and Israel. Jews never confuse profits and prophecy. When it comes to Jewish power, it’s no longer funny business with Bread and Circuses. Jews animalize and infantilize us to make us gamble more and indulge in more trashy entertainment, but when it comes to their commitment to Jewish power, it’s all serious business of "Is it good for the Jews?" and "We must never forget we are the descendants of Abraham." That’s why Jews have outlasted the Romans. If you want good advice, DO WHAT THE JEWS DO; DON’T DO WHAT THE JEWS TELL YOU TO DO. Jews always do one thing for themselves while telling others to do the opposite. So, it’s Jewish nationalism for Israel. It’s strict immigration control for Israel. But for gentile nations, Jews say, "open your borders and increase diversity." And if gentile nations disagree, they are labeled as ‘far right’, a label never applied to Israel that is far more nationalistic and restrictive in immigration.

Jews take our money via Wall Street but they worship at the Wailing Wall.

Pop Cult dominates America. Though I disagree with Pat Buchanan on lots of things, he is resolute in his conviction in True Marriage because his social-cultural consciousness has deep roots in the Catholic Church, traditional American values, and family life. Buchanan’s values don’t revolve around Pop Cult.
Of course, the negative side of such deep-rooted-ness is it can become blind to sense. Buchanan’s conservatism is so dogmatic in some ways that he still can’t face the truth of Darwinism. We need conviction, but we also need commitment to truth and courage in using reason to replace old myths with new truths. Still, Buchanan has more integrity than libertarians whose only conviction is self-interest based on sensual delights and pleasures. Their main ‘values’ come from mindless enthusiasm for anything related to human vice: gambling, drugs, prostitution, and etc. It’s no wonder that libertarians will not defend True Marriage. Their world-view revolves around self-pleasure so much that their view of marriage goes like this: "Since ‘gay marriage’ makes homos feel good, it must be good, and libertarians mustn’t oppose anything that makes some individuals feel good." Like B.J. Thomas, they are hooked on a feeling. Well, I like the song, but surely morality isn’t just about good feelings for whomever. As for Career Conservatives who just want a slot in the GOP machinery, they will cave to any trend or fashion that seems to be ‘winning’ at the moment. It’s like assessing the worth of movies based purely on hype and box office. Since ‘gay marriage’ is the big-budgeted block buster at the political box office while True Marriage has been relegated to ‘art house’ status, let’s just go with ‘gay marriage’ because it’s the only way to be invited to glamorous celebrations of power. Whatever political expediency such a ‘conservatism’ may have, it has no value in terms of truth, meaning, values, and commitment. If anything, it means conservatives should betray their principles just to be allowed a seat at the table at the gala party controlled and owned by Jewish oligarchs. It’s nothing more than collaborationism.

Even if conservatives lose in the short term, they must cling to true ideals, principles, and values. They must select and shape their own collective memories and narratives. They must not listen to Jews who would choose the PC Neocon narrative that is really designed to serve Jewish interests than white American interests. What do Neocons suggest that whites in the American South do? Burn the Confederate Flag, tell your daughters to have sex with Negroes, get on your knees and worship MLK, blame all black problems on ‘white racism’, and, of course, worship Jews and send your sons to wars in the Middle East to kill and die in Wars for Israel.
True white conservatives need to tell Jews to Fuc* Off! As Jews and Negroes are the main racial enemies of whites, whites should embrace the Confederate Flag(symbol of defiance against the biological slavery of whites under black rule made possible by white traitors of the North who sold their souls to lousy Jewish supremacists whose Zionist brethren in the Middle East have killed countless Arabs and Muslims) and maintain a Narrative that remembers and justifies the White right to survive. As for mudsharks, they should be cast out from the white community. If a white woman feels that white men are not racially-sexually good enough for her, then she and her mulatto baby aren’t good enough for the white community. Let her join the black community. If white women reject white men, why should white men of the white community accept her as a fellow white? Her idea is that ‘my vagina is shut off to inferior white men; I only permit black sperm in my vagina’. She is an interracist supremacist who thinks she’s superior because she has a racially superior black man and has a interracially superior black baby. If she thinks like that and rejects white men, white men should reject her. White people who socially accept a white woman who sexually rejects white men is like a Jewish Temple that accepts a Jew who abandons Judaism to become Christian or Muslim. If a Jew want to leave the Temple, then he should join a Mosque or Church. He shouldn’t expect the Temple to still accept him even though he rejected the Jewish Faith. Likewise, if a white interracist mudshark whore thinks she’s too good for white men and sexually rejects her own racial community, the white community should tell her to go live with the black community. But of course, these mudshark skanks want to have the cake and eat it too. Even as they reject white men and go with black men, they want to belong to the white community. It’s like homos reject real sex(the hetero kind) but they still want to play ‘mommy’ or ‘daddy’ by adopting children. (As for black men, I suppose it’s understandable why they want white women. Black women are deemed to be ugly. Black men find their own mothers so ugly that they don’t want to marry some black bitchass ho. So, even though there are so many unmarried black women, black men prefer white women and don’t wanna end up going with someone who looks like their ugly-ass mamas.)

Anyway, DO LIKE THE JEWS DO; DON’T DO WHAT JEWS TELL YOU TO DO. Among all the Ancient Peoples, only the Jews resisted the Roman temptation of Bread & Circuses and maintained their own sense of identity, values, narrative, and truth. And they survived to gain great wealth and great power. Today, they rule the world. Jews give us Bread and Circuses, but they stick to matzos and seminars for themselves. Even as they animalize and infantilize us through Pop Cult, they intellectualize and spiritualize their own sense of Jewish identity, destiny, and power.

How do a people survive and win? It’s through the combination of race, culture, and historical consciousness. Race alone without culture or memory won’t amount to much. It can be manipulated by other races or peoples because a race without a powerful sense of culture has nothing to rally around. But then, culture alone won’t suffice either because cultural identity is associated with racial identity. After all, if a person of any race can be equally Chinese by adopting the culture, what is Chinese-ness? If a person of any race can be German by adopting the culture, what is German-ness? Even if a non-Chinese person can be accepted by the Chinese nation and even if a non-German person can be accepted by the German nation, it would only be as a minority. Suppose a German goes to China and settles as a Chinese. Even if he’s accepted as Chinese by the Chinese, China is still China because most people are Chinese. But if China were to become 80% German, it would no longer be Chinese even if every German learns Chinese language and makes chop suey. Likewise, some Chinese might go to Germany and be accepted as fellow Germans. But if Germany were to become 80% Chinese, it becomes a different country. Even if all Chinese in Germany spoke German and made pretzels, Germany would no longer be Germany. So, race and culture must go together. Every racial-cultural community can make room for minorities who may be assimilated, but it is distinct from others because it has an overwhelming majority of one kind of people. Jews combined race and culture because Jewishness said the Covenant blessed the Jewish penis through circumcision and Jewish Law emphasizes that Jews should ideally be born of Jewish mothers. Thus, both the Jewish penis and Jewish vagina are under pressure to stay together and produce Jewish kids. (Throughout history, some Jews left the community and settled down with other peoples. In the short run, they might have married some hot spouse, but they lost the sexual war since their children simply became part of the gentile tribe. Assimilationist Jews merely became Greeks, Turks, Arabs, Egyptians, Moroccans, and etc. But Jews who kept the bond between Jewish men and Jewish women survived as a culture for 3,500 yrs and rule the world today. This feat is all the more impressive when we consider that so many Jews weren’t so great in the looks department. Maybe that was one reason why Jews stayed together. Even though many Jews wanted to marry prettier gentiles, gentiles for the most part didn’t want to marry gross-looking Jews, so Jews had no choice but to stick together.) Historical consciousness is also necessary since cultures change over time. Culturally, today’s Turks are very different from what they were 100 yrs ago and 200 yrs ago. And Japanese today are culturally very different from what they were 150 yrs ago. So, what makes Turks still Turk and what makes Japanese still Japanese? Because they have the historical memory that reminds them that Turks and Japanese of today are the descendants of Turks and Japanese of long ago. So, despite all the cultural changes — largely through Westernization — , they know there is a historical link between themselves today and their ancestors who underwent profound changes through history. Same goes for Jews. Jews today are culturally different from Jews of 100 yrs ago, 200 yrs ago, 500 yrs ago, and 1000 yrs ago. And yet, historical memory binds even modern Jews with Jews 1000 yrs ago and 2000 yrs ago.

Modern day Turks but still Turkish like their ancestors centuries ago. Historical Memory.

As for ideology or creed, it cannot be the core basis for identity. After all, anyone can be a Christian. Anyone can be a communist. Anyone can be a liberal-democrat. Anyone can become a socialist. Ideologies are all tricks of the mind without biological or even cultural basis. If Americanism is all about liberal-democracy, then Mexico and France might as well be America too since they also practice a form of liberal democracy. If communism was what Russia was all about, then communist Chinese and communist Poles might as well be Russian too. No, Russian-ness predated communism, existed through communism, and survived after communism. Ideologies come and go. It’s a proposition, and no proposition is forever. Ideas in the mind turn on and off. While ideas are important, they are too fluid and intangible to serve as core basis for identity and memory. This is why Judaism has one key advantage over other religions. When faced with Roman might and temptation of Bread and Circuses, Jews didn’t merely have the idea of powerful God(that could be shared with everyone). They had an idea of a great God that was bound to them by blood. The Covenant between God and Jews meant that Jews are special, that Jewish destiny has meaning, and that no matter what happens to them, they can rely on the higher truth of God through all kinds of adversity. This made Jews tough, resilient, tenacious, and committed to their survival and triumph. The Jewish ‘proposition’ of God wasn’t a mere abstraction that universally applied to everyone. Rather, it was the idea that Jews had a special tribal connection to God and therefore must resist the temptation of other peoples who would use all kinds of tricks and offerings to win the Jews over and make them collaborate. Of course, sometimes Jews had to collaborate to survive and make a living, but they always collaborated with their hands and feet, not with their hearts and souls. Their hearts and souls remained loyal to the idea of God as a special protector of the Jewish people who were to be tested time and again and made harder and tougher so that they will eventually overcome all adversity and gain supremacy over the goyim.
That is the kind of mind-set we need to learn from the Jews. That’s what we must emulate from the Jews. DO WHAT THE JEWS DO; DON’T DO WHAT JEWS TELL YOU TO DO. Jews are like pushers who don’t get high on their own supplies. The junk they push is for us. Pop Cult is to rot our souls so that Jews can control and command us animalized and infantilized beasts. If Americans and Western folks hadn’t been so infantilized and animalized, would something like ‘gay marriage’ have gotten so far? Of course not. But your average American thinks, "Geek if Lady Gaga and Oprah think it’s cool, it must be." Wake up dummies!

Personally, I believe tremendous innovations are being made and humanity, at least in the West, is on the cusp of mega-breakthroughs in biotechnology and artificial intelligence. If history teaches us anything, it is never to predict the future. Hell or heaven may be waiting for us, or combination thereof. But we won’t know until we get there. Also, despite the phenomenon of globalism, different parts of the world will likely progress or regress in their own manner, and what may be a golden age for one part of the world could be the dark ages for another part. Today, Israel and Saudi Arabia seem to be doing great while rest of the Arab/Muslim world is being torn apart and burned to cinders. Russian economy is in free fall whereas the American economy seems to be on the rebound. Who knows what the future holds for EU, a very unstable entity, or for China, a nation of great potential and massive problems.

Nevertheless, Michael Hanlon, the author of the article, makes some startling arguments that remind us of how little progress there has been in real terms in the last 30 or even 40 yrs. I was surprised to hear that chances of surviving cancer today hasn’t improved all that much since the 1970s. And of course, today’s airplanes, though computerized, are still modeled on the standard blueprint of the 1960s. In some ways, the rise of the internet and online world may have had a negative impact on innovations in many fields. After all, if so much of our communication and work can be handled via the internet, it will foster accelerated innovation in software but depress innovation in hardware since we’d only need a few gadgets to access what we want. What need for new stereo systems if we can get all our music via the computer? What need for better reading materials if we can get all our reading material via downloads? What need for electronic devices like dvd players if we can watch all our movies by internet streaming? It’s like if we were to invent a teleporter — like the one in STAR TREK — , there would be no need for cars, airplanes, trains, and etc. We could all just enter a booth and be teleported back and forth around the world.

But science and technology aside, Hanlon is so blinded by self-righteous Political Correctness that he fails to see the hole in his very argument. For any innovation to be possible, there has to be a free exchange of ideas, opinions, and speculations. Genuine innovation must be founded on truth, but then, of course, truth is a double-edged sword. As every person or group has its own agenda, myths, values, self-image, and/or interests, certain truths are preferable to others. Indeed, when truth undermines one’s world-view or paradigm, there’s a tendency to suppress the truth through taboos and ‘correctness’. This is as true of ideology as of religion. The most famous case in history of a truth-teller’s ordeal under the powers-that-be is probably the story of Galileo’s persecution at the hands of the Catholic Church that couldn’t abide by the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun than vice versa. Though wrong on facts, the Catholic Church insisted on its rightness on the basis of moral/spiritual correctness. If indeed God is the source of all truth and if He created man with a special duty and destiny in the universe, why wouldn’t He have created Earth in the center of everything? And if the Bible, as the Word of God, is infallible, then what it says about the Creation of the World must be true. Genesis says God created the Sun(as an object in the sky) after He created the Earth. Thus, Catholic Church doctrine wasn’t merely academic or theoretical. If it were, Church authorities could have accepted Galileo’s findings. The problem was Galileo’s observations went against the moral and spiritual — the righteous — world-view of the Catholic Church. It undermined the entire paradigm of the special relationship between God and man.

Usually when the ruling order has problems with new ideas or theories, it has less to do with fear of new ideas per se than with the nature of the taboos and sacredness that defines the social order. So, an idea that might seem scandalous to one social order might not seem to strange to another one. For example, the theory of evolution is likely to be less threatening to Hindus than to Muslims. Hindus, after all, have a very weird view of how life was created and re-creates itself. In contrast, Muslims cling, more or less, to the Creation story as told in the Bible. Allah created man in his image. So, the idea that man evolved from apes or lower beings would seem offensive to a traditional Muslim. In contrast, Hindus believe souls are reincarnated from man to animal back to man to animal, therefore something like evolution is likely to be less threatening to their world-view and their view of human life and its place in the cosmos.

The West is now post-religious, but religious mind-set is part of human psyche. We are by nature spiritual and we fixate on certain things as either sacred or wicked. And even as the West is now in post-Christian mode, the Christian mind-set steeped in the notions of ‘sin’, ‘guilt’, and ‘redemption’ are still very much with us. However, those passions and sentiments have been transferred to our ideological fixations. Thus, slavery in America is said to be the "America’s Original Sin". And MLK isn’t mere admired as a political leader but worshiped as someone bigger than the Founding Fathers and Jesus Christ combined. Indeed, one’s career in America can survive badmouthing God, Jesus, Founding Fathers, and Lincoln, but anyone who dares to utter the mildest criticism of MLK will be shut out from all elite positions. And certain groups, especially Jews, Negroes, and homos, are seen as Holy Peoples. Their narratives are elevated above those of others. Their tragedies are favored over those of others. Thus, a handful of dead blacks in the South during the Civil Rights Movement count for more than millions of Slavs killed by Stalinists and Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s. A dead Jew counts for more than thousands of dead Palestinians in the Middle East. A Holocaust Survivor counts for more than a Cambodian Killing Fields survivor, Ukrainian Great Famine survivor, or Nakba refugee.

Nobody cares about the Nakba. Michael Hanlon probably doesn't.

Progress in the modern sense ideally means the favoring of rational, factual, logical, open, and honest truth-seeking over irrational, sacrosanct, taboo-ridden, self-righteous, and repressive dogmatism. And there was a time when liberalism used to stand for genuine modern principles. But over time, the meaning of ‘progress’ came to be associated with certain specific ideological agendas that, though wrapped in the rhetoric of reason and science, were defined and driven by neo-spiritual ideological certitudes. The most famous example is, of course, Marxism that claimed to be entirely materialist, rational, empiricist, logical, factual, and scientific but was really a new form of religion centered around the cult worship of a German Jew who thought he knew everything. So, even though communism became a burden and drag on intellectual and even scientific freedom in Soviet Union and Maoist China, the official narrative held out that True Progress or Salvation could only come from adherence to Marxism and its elaborations via Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism.

Though the world we live in isn’t totalitarian like the Soviet Union or Red China, a similar kind of mind-set prevails in Political Correctness. Instead of progress being associated with free inquiry, free debate, open discussion, encouragement of controversy, and rejection of taboos, the prevailing Liberalism(that dominates the academia and media) identifies ‘progressivism’ in close association to certain social, political, and/or cultural agendas favored by the Power Elites that are mostly dominated by Jews and homos in the West.

But Michael Hanlon is blind to this because he is so sure that ‘progress’ is all about ‘anti-racism’ and homomania. Sure, if ‘racism’ is something peddled by the KKK, the Nation of Islam, or the Nazis, genuine progressive would entail that we reject and denounce such ideas. Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves if we are rejecting certain ideas and views because they are factually wrong or ‘morally wrong’. I would argue that the ideologies of KKK, Nazis, and Nation of Islam should be rejected because they are factually wrong. The Nation of Islam’s racial theories are ludicrous. Nazis were factually wrong about ‘Aryans’ being some mythical superior race. And KKK members were mostly ignoramus bigots who didn’t know much about anything. I would argue that Nazism, KKK-ideology, and Nation of Islam’s world-view are morally wrong because they are factually wrong. (Nevertheless, one can argue for the moral rightness of something that is factually wrong and the moral wrongness of something that is factually true. The existence of God is factually wrong, but a moral or at least moralistic view of life can be built upon the idea of a special relationship between God and man. In contrast, even if evolution is factually correct — one would have to be an idiot in this day and age to go on rejecting the basic tenets of Darwin — , one could argue that it ultimately makes for an amoral view of life that renders even morality into just a game of struggle and survival, i.e. there is no higher morality in evolution.) But, the radical racist idiocies of the Nazis, KKK, and the Nation of Islam does NOT mean that all theories of race and racial differences are false. The recent book by Nicholas Wade, TROUBLESOME INHERITANCE, details how races are real and racial group differences exist. But we don’t need a book to tell us that. We know from statistics in street crime, school bullying, and sports that blacks are stronger and more aggressive than other races. We know from Jewish power and success that Jews, as a group, have higher IQ than other groups. We know that some races tend to have certain facial and hair features while other groups have different features. Even among black Africans, there are marked differences among Ethiopians, Nigerians, and Xhosa peoples. Indeed, they may be seen as different races, just like white Europeans and yellow East Asians are seen as members of different races even though both peoples have light skin and straight hair.

Even if the bigotries of old-style ‘racists’ should be rejected, we are still confronted with racial problems stemming from the facts of racial differences. Maybe these problems can be overcome, maybe they cannot be. But they are here to stay, and in order to understand them, we need a culture of free inquiry, free debate, and open discussion. But what goes by today’s ‘progressivism’ doesn’t allow freedom of discussion and debate. Instead, all people working in the media and academia must bow down to the Politically Correct Lie that ‘race is just a social construct’ or ‘race is just a myth’. This isn’t science. It’s not truth. It’s the dogma of the neo-religion of Political Correctness peddled by Jewish elites. Because Jews got burned by white radical racism of the Nazis in the 20th century, they’ve concocted a new ideology that discourages and punishes any kind of ‘racialist’ thinking among whites. If anything, ‘racism’ or race-ism should only mean ‘belief in races and racial differences’. After all, ‘ism’ simply means belief, therefore ‘race’ and ‘ism’ should mean belief in races, racial consciousness, and racial differences. It shouldn’t automatically mean ‘racial surpremacism’, ‘racial hatred’, ‘racial arrogance’, and ‘racial chauvinism’. ‘Ism’ must means belief. Why should a race-ist be conflated automatically with a radical racist? It’d be like conflating a socialist or social-democrat with a Stalinist or Pol-Pot-ist. Most people who call themselves ‘socialists’, after all, are not hardcore Stalinists or Maoists. So, why should it be assumed that a race-ist is a Hitlerite or someone who wants to join the KKK? Furthermore, if all forms of radical racism is evil, how come Jewish groups are allowed to hold extreme views in Israel?

I wonder what Michael Hanlon has to say about Zionist radical racism. I wonder how a ‘progressive’ like him feels about the plight of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. My guess he is mum on the matter because the only way to succeed in the media is to suck up to the all-powerful Jewish oligarchs who control most of the media and academic institutions. Of course, even most gentiles in high positions either slavishly serve their Jewish masters. Or their minds have been rotted by Jewish theories of Political Correctness. So, what is not acceptable among white gentiles is perfectly acceptable among Jews. What would be condemned as ‘racist’ in America and Europe is, if anything, encouraged in Israel. And despite the ongoing destruction of Palestinians, US and UK continue to shower Israel with endless praise and support. So, if Hanlon really believes in Politically Correct version of ‘progress’, why is he so silent about the plight of Palestinians? Are Palestinians less than human because they are not on the bandwagon with ‘gay marriage’? (Since Israel doesn’t have ‘gay marriage’, shouldn’t it be condemned along with Russia? But I doubt if Hanlon will pressure Israel to adopt ‘gay marriage’. Jews can do as they please, but all the other nations better do as Jews order them to.) Why does he care so much more about rich privileged homos working in cahoots with Wall Street sharks than about Palestinians in Gaza who are freezing to death in winter? Indeed, even by the rules of PC, people like Hanlon miserably fail the test.

Child in Gaza facing freezing weather. But does Michael Hanlon care?

Also, Hanlon seems blind to the fact that Western homomania is, in effect, a new kind of ‘racism’ and ‘cultural imperialism’. If white folks in the West consider themselves to be morally, culturally, and spiritually superior to non-Westerners and Eastern Europeans because they believe in ‘gay marriage’ — and in the illiberal suppression of all voices that stand counter to the racial homo agenda — , then it is merely a new kind of Western arrogance and Culture War on the entire world through the financial and media muscle of Jewish globalist power. White Man’s Burden has gone from spreading-the-light-of-civilization-to-the-rest-of-the-world to enforcing-the-notion-that-a-homo-guy’s-bunghole-is-the-sexual-equivalent-of-a-woman’s-vagina. Homomania is really an attack on women. Any agenda that says the smelly fecal-stained anus of Barney Frank is the biological equivalent of your mother’s vagina is sick and demented. It’s one thing to say that homosexuality is a natural abnormality and that some men and women are born with weird sexual predilections. It also makes sense to acknowledge that homosexual mind-set in certain creative endeavors have contributed something noteworthy to civilization. But to say that, on the biological and moral level, homosexuality has equal value as real sexuality is ludicrous and downright offensive. It’s like saying incest-sexuality has the same value as normal sexuality. But what’s truly sickening about the homo agenda is that homosexuality has been elevated as something even better and holier than real sexuality. Today, if a prominent figure were to opine that real sexuality is superior to homosexuality, he or she will be attacked, censured, shunned, and fired. But if someone argues that homosexuality and homosexuals are better than real sexuality or real sexuals, he or she will be given an interested hearing and even be applauded. Same goes for Jews. If anyone says Christianity or gentiles are better than Judaism or Jews, he or she will be destroyed on the spot. If anyone says that Jews are so special and indeed superior to other peoples in just about anything, he or she will be praised and admired as being so wonderfully sympathetic toward Jews. So, issues around homos and Jews are not even about equality. They are about Jewish supremacism and homo supremacism.

What we’ve had since the advent of the secular quasi-religion of Political Correctness is agenda over truth, faith over facts, ‘ideality’ over reality, (self)righteousness over rightness, and the Narrative(that tells a favored story) over Noticing(of what’s really happening). In non-political areas such as science, math, and technology, there’s a great deal of progress being made — regardless of Hanlon’s arguments — because people are free to pursue the truths of hard facts and see what works and what does not.
But in the field of ‘social science’, true progress can only be measured in terms of what is true and what isn’t true. To be sure, discovering what is true may not solve social problems. In some cases, they may make matters worse. After all, Detroit is so far gone that I doubt if spelling out the problem — that crazy blacks caused its downfall — will do much good. Detroit will rise again only if entire areas are bought by whites who move in en masse to gentrify the city block by block. Though people are loathe to admit that blacks ruined Detroit, even mentioning the truth won’t do much good at this point since blacks are blacks and will continue to act like blacks. In some cases, speaking the truth may make things worse. For example, for the sake of political priorities or social peace, the lie or myth can be more productive and useful than the truth. The Soviet mass killing of Polish officers in Katyn is one such example. For the sake of the US-Soviet alliance, the Allies just made believe that the Nazis did it. During the war, it was more important to save the alliance with a lie than threaten it with the truth.

Jackie Robinson as a 'credit to his race'.

Also, one might say the myth of racial equality did some good for America prior to the rise of black rage and riots. When America upheld the myth of racial equality, many blacks were expected to be a ‘credit to their race’ and try to be like respectable white folks. And white folks were pressured to drop their racial hostility and accept Negroes as essentially white folks with black skin. But as the 60s heated up, the myth of racial equality that had pressured blacks to act more respectable and pressured whites to be less bigoted began to break down. Of course, with the Civil Rights on the march, there was ever greater pressure to promote the notion of racial equality and the idea that all races were the same except for skin color. But as blacks won more freedom, they weren’t content to be a ‘credit to their race’. They began to feel stifled when holding hands with white liberals and singing "We Shall Overcome". Blacks preferred to go wild and over-cum. Muhammad Ali didn’t want to be like Joe Louis. Louis beat up lots of white guys but in interviews acted like he didn’t mean to hit anybody and white guys just accidentally bumped into his Nice Negro fists. In contrast, Muhammad Ali was very brash and aggressive in hollering about how he was the baddest black puncher in the world. And with more freedom, black musical culture got ever funkier and wilder. And black fashions, styles, and attitudes began to take on a life of their own. They were no longer modeled on whiteness. So, despite the official myth of racial equality, the new black identity emphasized black pride, black beauty(or at least booty), and black power. As for white folks, it soon began to dawn that Negroes were no longer trying to win the approval and respect of mainstream society. Blacks were no longer acting like the family in RAISIN IN THE SUN. They were acting like Chitlins on the Stove. So, white families began to run from blackening cities and even from certain blackening suburbs. It was the era of black blight and white flight. But even though whites were scared to death of Negro rage and aggression, many whites were also turned on by black prowess in funky music and sports. Even as whites ran to the suburbs, their TV sets were flashing with Negro domination in football-basketball-boxing, Negroes acting funny in TV sitcoms(how can anyone not like SANFORD AND SON?), dance shows, and etc. And whites were turned on Negroes in pop culture and sports not for their sameness with whites but for their differences as tough athletes, funny clowns, booty-shakers, and singers. And of course, PBS ran countless sacro-sanct documentaries about the Civil Rights Movement and MLK. And ROOTS had a huge impact on the American psyche when it aired in the 1970s.

Anyway, in the long run, the myth of racial equality couldn’t hold. Eventually, lies cannot be the foundation of a stable order. Only harsh repression, social tyranny, and isolation from the rest of the world can sustain a system of lies. It’s like the old feudal system of Japan could last as long as Japan was shut off from the world. But once modernity and freedom flowed into Japan, the old ways began to fade fast. Likewise, even though the myth of racial equality seemed to be doing wonders in gradually bringing whites and blacks together through moral pressure(on whites to be nicer to Negroes) and social pressure(on blacks to be more respectable so as to be worthy of being accepted by white middle class society), it was bound to fail because, in truth, whites and blacks are NOT equal on the biological level. For the myth of racial equality to work, it is necessary to maintain a repressive system like the one in Cuba where blacks are prohibited from running wild and acting like crazed rappers and looters. If Cuban blacks acted like that, there would be police clubs cracking their nappy-ass heads, and there would be nothing they can do about it as Cuba has no ACLU or ‘free media’ to bring attention to ‘police brutality’.

Sly and the Family Stone. Negroes doing what comes to them naturally.

But in a free nation like the US, the myth of racial equality was bound to break down because blacks, once guaranteed total freedom and equality, would revert to their original boogie-woogie, ugabuga, jigger-jiver, and funky-ass savage nature. Inside every Negro is a spear-chucker trying to get out. As for whites, Conservatives and Liberals alike, they would try to find ways to flee to safer areas with no or fewer Negroes.
Of course, the official ideology of racial equality is still enforced in America, at least in rhetoric. But in practice and in what people do(as opposed to what they say), no one much pays attention to the myth. In both black/white animosity and amorousness, the operative dynamics is fueled by racial differences/inequality than racial equality. Many whites flee from black areas because blacks are correctly seen as more aggressive and stronger(and even physically bigger). And many blacks fail in school and fall behind because of their lower intelligence(which is why so many depend on ‘affirmative action’ to go to good schools) and unrulier nature. But, it’s also true that interracist relationships between blacks and whites — overwhelmingly black male and white female — have to do with the predominant perception that black men are more sexually domineering and white women are more attractive. And if white guys in the past possessed sufficient racial pride to get riled up about the interracist threat and pushed back in the name of white male pride and white racial survival, today’s white boys are more accepting of black sexual domination but because they, like white women, have surrendered to the ideal and image of the Negro as the superior racial male. White men have been pussified into a bunch of Ken Burns who probably would love to see his wife be humped by Jack Johnson. As he is so wussy and ‘faggoty’, he might even get off with some Negro pumping him in the ass. Even straight white males seem to be turning ‘gayish’ in the presence of Negroes. They act like beta-dogs groveling and whimpering before the bigger alpha dog.

Anyway, progress in ‘social science’ cannot be measured like progress in technology. Technology is about what works better, what is more effective, what is more productive, etc. In contrast, the sciences are, above all, about what is true and what isn’t true. There are many discoveries in physics that have no practical application — and never will — , but scientists study them anyway because the point of science is to pursue the truth-for-truth’s-sake. So, even if truth-seeking in physics leads to discoveries of no practical value, it’s part of scientific progress because it had led to attainment of more exacting truth.

Same goes for social science. Though what we learn from social science may or may not help us to solve social problems, the first order of business of ‘social science’ is to study and discover what is true and what isn’t. Whether or not practical lessons can be derived from such studies and applied to the socio-politico-economic realm, social scientists need to aim for the truth since only the truth can serve as a sound basis for social policy. Why did communism fail in the end? Despite all the propaganda, campaigns, hysterias, rallies, social engineering, and etc., it failed to deliver enough bread for the people. It was economically inefficient, socially repressive, ideologically dogmatic, intellectually stifling, and at odds with certain basic aspects of human nature. Soviet Union was one of the most spectacular of all social experiments, but it collapsed almost overnight in the late 80s and early 90s.
Likewise, why is the Western Civilization beginning to crumble and risking collapse? Because it is now based on ‘false truths’ of multiculturalism, diversity-mongering, myths of racial equality, wonderfulness of Jews, homomania, radical narcissism, anti-race-ism, Negrophilia, and etc.
Of course, the Nazi experiment also failed because it was premised on the ‘false truths’ of ‘Aryan supremacism’ and other nutjob racial theories that over-estimated the invincibility of the Germans while woefully underestimating the resolve, ability, and power of Russian Slavs. Indeed, even if Nazis had won World War II, their ideology would have failed in the long run because it was founded on too many lies. In the end, lies get in the way of the truth that is the only surefire foundation for long-lasting stability.

Whether ideas and observations in ‘social sciences’ are useful/applicable or not, the first priority is to dig for the truth. Of course, truth alone isn’t enough. After all, there is nothing that can be done about South Africa now. Even if everyone in South Africa — even Negroes — and the West could be convinced of the racial differences between whites and blacks, South Africa will remain black-ruled, and its problems will keep multiplying as blacks mismanage many sectors of the economy and government. So, truth is never enough to save a social order.

Sweden. More Immigration from the Third World a good idea?

However, if a social order is to be prevented from making or exacerbating mistakes, it must face the truth. Sweden can still be saved from the horrors of ‘diversity-mongering’, and the ONLY way is for Swedes to wake up to the truth that diversity often leads to division, Muslim values are contrary to Western values, and too many black Africans mean more crime, violence, rape, and mayhem in Sweden. Also, how can any civilization survive if its men are pussified and made to sexually surrender their women to the men of another race that are worshiped as superior — as is the case with white American males who’ve surrendered and submitted to Negroes in the Cuckold War?

Michael Hanlon writes:

"Risk played its part, too, in the massive postwar shift in social attitudes. People, often the young, were prepared to take huge, physical risks to right the wrongs of the pre-war world. The early civil rights and anti-war protestors faced tear gas or worse. In the 1960s, feminists faced social ridicule, media approbation and violent hostility. Now, mirroring the incremental changes seen in technology, social progress all too often finds itself down the blind alleyways of political correctness. Student bodies used to be hotbeds of dissent, even revolution; today’s hyper-conformist youth is more interested in the policing of language and stifling debate when it counters the prevailing wisdom. Forty years ago a burgeoning media allowed dissent to flower. Today’s very different social media seems, despite democratic appearances, to be enforcing a climate of timidity and encouraging groupthink.

And then he writes:

"Does any of this really matter? So what if the white heat of technological progress is cooling off a bit? The world is, in general, far safer, healthier, wealthier and nicer than it has ever been. The recent past was grim; the distant past disgusting. As Steven Pinker and others have argued, levels of violence in most human societies had been declining since well before the Golden Quarter and have continued to decline since. We are living longer. Civil rights have become so entrenched that gay marriage is being legalised across the world and any old-style racist thinking is met with widespread revulsion. The world is better in 2014 than it was in 1971."

Doesn’t he see any contradiction between his gripe(that today’s young are conformist unlike the 60s generation) and his praise(that we are so much better off today because certain ideas and outlooks are forbidden)? Incidentally, were the Counterculture radicals of the 60s really all that freedom-loving and risk-taking? Or were many of them merely driven by power-lust and looking to the future when they would wield the power to enforce their version of ‘correctness’ on everyone in quasi-Maoist style? In that case, the so-called ‘risk-taking’ of the 60s gave birth to the ‘new conformism’ since the principal animating force wasn’t love of freedom and liberty but lust for power and control when radicals would finally get to take over the institutions and decide what should be approved in thought and expression.

Hanlon argues that even if technological innovation has slowed down, we should congratulate ourselves for having created a much better and peaceful place for everyone. But is what he calls ‘progress’ in human affairs really progress? True, we are living longer, but whites and some other peoples are not having kids. They are dying demographically. In nations like Germany and Japan, people may be living longer, but there are far fewer young Germans and Japanese, and they are not reproducing in sufficient numbers. As Germany has high levels of immigration, it could lead to the abolishment of Germany, a social/racial cultural entity that has lasted for thousands of years.
And what does ‘gay marriage’ have to do with ‘civil rights’? Hasn’t this emphasis on the ‘gay agenda’ effectively drained leftism and political activism of any real concern for the underclass, working class, and the middle class in favor of the vain narcissism of homo elites who are favored by and allied with Jewish oligarchs who run entire parts of the world as their financial fiefdoms? What does ‘gay marriage’ have to do with civil rights when bakeries are driven out of business for refusing to bake ‘gay wedding cakes’? Should NYT be fined or driven out of business if it refuses to run advertising for dildos? Dildos may be perfectly legal, but doesn’t NYT have the freedom to choose what kinds of ads to run in its paper? Then, why shouldn’t bakeries have the freedom/right to decide what kinds of cake they wish to bake? It’d be one thing if a bakery said "We won’t serve homos", but where is the problem with a bakery that refuses to bake a ‘gay wedding cake’? Also, businesses are not allowed to open in certain cities if their owners support true marriage. Besides, if Hanlon really believes in ‘marriage equality’ as a ‘civil right’, where is he on ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy? Why is ‘gay marriage’ a civil rights issues, but ‘incest marriage’ isn’t promoted as a civil right for ‘incest-sexuals’? So much for equality. Some perversions and forms of sexual deviance get special treatment while others are still treated as anathema. So, it all depends on whether your group has the support of and alliance with the all-powerful Jewish globalist oligarchs, with whom Michael Hanlon seems to be in cahoots.

More importantly, if social science should be about truth, where is the truth in conflating homo fecal penetration — what goes by the name of ‘anal sex’ — with the ‘rainbow’? What does the beauty of the rainbow have to do with a homo guy’s penis stained with fecal matter or with an anus bleeding from being pummeled by homo penises? And on what biological basis are we to assume that a homo man’s fecal hole is the sexual equivalent of a woman’s vagina(that was properly designed by nature to a sexual/reproductive organ)? Isn’t it a form of radical relativism to say that a homo guy’s fecal hole is the ‘sexual’ equivalent of a woman’s vagina? Isn’t it an affront to womanhood to say that Barney Frank’s crusty smelly bunghole has the same ‘sexual’ value as a woman’s vagina? Considering what women go through in childbirth to produce new human beings, how can any sane person say a homo man’s stinky fecal hole should be elevated the same status as a ‘sex’ organ as a vagina? It’s as biologically absurd as saying storks bring babies or that there’s any veracity to Creationism. Homomania is not about civil rights. It’s about elitist privilege of the globalist elites who’ve gained total control of Western banks, media, government, advertising, academia, and entertainment. The ‘gay’ agenda has been the favorite of billionaire oligarchs all around the world. They love it because rich elites are minorities everywhere — especially Jews — , and so, they want accustom the masses to the ‘new normal’ idea that they should bend over to the biases and predilections of the ruling minority elites. Therefore, we are to believe that 2% of the male population that is homo and practices ‘sex’ by sticking penises into fecal holes are just as sexually legitimate to human survival as all the women in the world. But can anyone name a single human life that was born through the fecal hole of a homo anus? Maybe Barney Frank, but even he was born of a woman from what I heard.

As for ‘old-style racism’ being ‘met with widespread revulsion’, I do see progress in that. What person in his or her right mind would say the views of the KKK or the Nazis had much validity. Also, even ordinary white Americans in good ole democratic USA had certain racial and ethnic prejudices(of nasty and petty nature) that thankfully passed from history. But Hanlon isn’t seeing the big picture because his form of PC favors certain groups and focuses only evils of certain groups.
It’s true that whites, usually condemned for ‘past racism’, have become more tolerant and open-minded. But then, toward which groups? In the current US, whites are much less likely to badmouth Jews and blacks. But are whites equally ‘anti-racist’ against all groups? What about white American animosity toward Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, and Palestinians? If anything, the Jew-run media often encourage white American hostility toward nations and peoples who are perceived to enemies of Israel. And what of Jewish animosity toward Russia? This Jewish animus isn’t targeted only at Putin but at all Russians and Russian culture itself. The vile Jewess Anne Applebaum even goes so far as to say that Russians can never be like ‘us’, i.e. Cold War should go on forever between the (Jew-dominated)West and Russia. Now, suppose if someone said that "Jews can never be like us." That would be grounds for his/her dismissal and destruction, but Jews can say horribly stereotypical things about other groups without repercussions. Where is Hanlon on this? Jennifer Rubin played an instrumental role in having Jason Richwine fired from the Heritage Foundation, but it seems she can get away with having extreme friends and espousing hateful opinions against Palestinians. The likes of Sheldon Adelson can urge US government to nuke Iran, but they suffer no negative consequences. If anything, they are allowed to play a prominent role in American elections. There was a huge brouhaha over Donald Sterling’s request to his mistress to stop bringing black dates to basketball games, but the likes of Adelson get a total pass for suggesting that US nuke a nation that poses no threat to the US or even to Israel. (Iran has no nukes while Israel has 300 illegal nukes.) And considering the ongoing oppression of Palestinians and zero sympathy among US politicians for the victims of Israelis, it seems ‘old style racism’ is very much with us against certain groups. How is that the likes of Hanlon congratulate themselves over the end of white rule in South Africa but have nothing to say about the ongoing radical racist rule of Israel/Palestine by Zionist supremacists? I guess he puts food on the table by sucking up to Jewish oligarchs who own and run most of the media in the Western world.

Furthermore, even though ‘old style racism’ was sometimes ugly and even deranged, the problem of PC is it attacks even rational and factual race-ism — ‘race-ism’ simply meaning belief in the existence of races, possibility of racial differences, and the need for racial consciousness. Of course, such attacks are always selective. For example, Liberals have piled on Charles Murray for suggesting that whites have higher IQ than blacks. But the same Liberals have no problem with Steven Pinker saying that Ashkenazi Jews may indeed have higher IQs than gentiles. Also, though Jimmy the Greek was attacked for saying that blacks make better athletes, David Epstein the Jewish sports writer has been left alone and even praised for detailing the many ways in which some races are better at certain sports than other races. By now, surely we’ve all noticed that West Africans are better at sprinting and East Africans are better at long distance running. Epstein the Jew is allowed to notice such things, but white gentiles better shut up about them. So, there’s clearly a case of ‘who, whom’ in the rules of who gets to say what and who doesn’t. If the subject is ‘controversial’, Jews can discuss it in their own manner, but no one else better touch it and should just stick to the standard PC line of how ‘race is just a myth’ or ‘race is just a social construct’.

But most damaging of all is that the failure to address issues of racial differences and HBD(human bio-diversity) may lead to the downfall of the great achievements of modernity. Steven Pinker and Michael Hanlon are right to acknowledge that there’s been great social and moral progress around the world. But in which part of the world? Even within the US, why is Portland so much better off than Detroit? Why is Singapore what it is while Haiti is a cesspool? How come black Africa has lagged behind much of the world? Why is even progress in black Africa driven by investment by Chinese and Indians? How come Israel has done so much better than Arab nations? Would Israel do better if it practiced open doors policy with its Arab neighbors in the name of ‘diversity’? Suppose all Arabs sincerely abandoned their hatred of Zionists and wanted to come to Israel to find work and marry Jews. Should Jews then openly embrace Arabs and let Arabs come and go freely in Israel? Will Israel really be well-served by the arrival of countless Egyptians and Yemenis? Based on all available facts, Israel’s success owes mainly to Ashkenazi Jews who are known for their higher IQ and European cultural influences. Indeed, even non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel are, for the most part, nothing special. So, HBD — human bio-diversity — does matter, and Israel would do better to be racially conscious in promoting higher birthrates among Ashkenazi Jews of European origin. After all, Israel has stringent rules against African immigration and has even taken measures to discourage birthrates of Ethiopian Jews whose IQs are low and whose performances lag way behind that of other Jews.
How does Michael Hanlon feel about such race-ist measures taken by Israelis?

While ‘old style racism’ that indulged in nasty name-calling and stereotyping was indeed ugly, the new-style PC ‘anti-racism’ could very well destroy Western Civilization as we know it. With current birthrates, European demography will shrink by 35% every generation. If, in tandem with such demographic collapse, countless millions of angry Muslims and aggressive/savage black Africans arrive in Europe and have lots of babies who grow up with no respect for Western values, what will happen to Western Civilization? The West will become like the Middle East and, worse, like Sub-Saharan Africa. And then all the gains and achievements that Pinker praises in BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE will be lost. Seriously, would Singapore be served well by importing 2 million black Africans on the premise of ‘anti-racism’ that all races are equal and that ‘race is just a social construct or myth’? Seriously? Such idiocy will destroy any well-governed society. Such is NOT progress but regress into barbarism, even into savagery, like what’s happened to Detroit, Newark, black areas of St. Louis, and etc.
But because of PC, any mindless ‘anti-racist’ agenda is conflated as ‘progress’ when its effects are anything but. Look at Malmo, Sweden today as the result of increased immigration from Muslim and African nations. Parts of the city are regressing toward barbarism, but because ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ are automatically conflated with ‘progress’, the charade goes on that the West is making progress with open immigration. But Hanlon is blind to all that because PC had turned him into a silly mind-slave of globalist Jewish oligarchs who are surely petting his head for being such a good little boy spouting PC nonsense.

Does anyone really think Western Civilization will be enriched with the influx of these hordes who've demonstrated that they can't even manage their own societies? Politically Correct 'progress' ensures it will be so. Surely, even 'old-style racism' is preferable to willfully naive suicide of a once great civilization and culture. But the likes of Hanlon are privileged whites who can afford to shield themselves from demographic threats to the well-being of the West. As long as they act as shills of globalist Jewish oligarchs, they will have plush jobs as PC scribes pushing 'gay marriage' as the greatest 'civil rights' issue for the entire world.